4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #94

[Megnut]

But there is a big difference between 'Touch DNA' and 'Single Source Touch DNA...which is what we have on the knife sheath.

If there was 'touch DNA' matching BK on the sheath, MIXED WITH other DNA profiles....that would be controversial and easier for the defense to discount and justify. That could mean that the owner of the knife left their DNA and they had somehow also picked up some skin cells somehow from BK....

But Single Source DNA , of BK, on the under rim of the snap from the knife sheath----that is much harder to explain away. The fact that it is the only DNA found points more directly at BK being the last person to unsnap that sheath. JMO




A leather sheath for a Ka-Bar brand combat-style knife was found at the off-campus home where the U of I students were killed. Investigators located a single source of male touch DNA on the sheath's button snap, which was later linked to Kohberger, police have said.Jan 12, 2024

Judge orders DNA records turned over to Kohberger defense​

And, in fact, the only person to have handled the snap. No other DNA from another source recovered.

Another detail surely conveyed by the sheath itself-- its relative age. Helping information for the scope of purchase!

JMO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

This is an interesting question. For everyone's sake, I hope there is nothing in his student "file" alarming enough to reasonably foreshadow what happened. I can't imagine how difficult it is for school administrators to balance the rights of all. You don't want to potentially ruin someone's life without good reason and probably get sued. And yet, you certainly want to keep everyone safe and knowing when is the right time to remove someone from your school must certainly be a very difficult decision.

I've supervised new Ph.D students who are responsible for teaching undergraduate courses and I've supervised new contingent (adjunct) Keep in mind how little data any supervising faculty or administrator has in the 15-week stretch of a semester. BK comes in as a stranger, an unknown. The classroom is a closed environment, for the most part. It takes weeks for undergraduates to be worried enough to complain. Once I was teaching in a room that had an adjoining classroom. It took 2 weeks for me to notice that the teacher was not showing up to teach the class. The students never made a complaint. The course was not in my area, but I told my colleague what I observed and he came in to teach the course from that point. And that's a situation in a small university. In my days supervising Ph.D students, I was scheduled to observe one person 5-6 weeks into the semester and by the end of the day, he resigned after we discussed his situation. Nice young man, hated teaching. He wasn't narcissistic or abusive. And no one had complained! But from the moment I walked in, I knew the students were in trouble. Had he not resigned voluntarily (or had I been less observant) he might have remained in the class, with increased supervision, until the end of the term.

If undergraduates need 120 credits to graduate from most colleges, that's 40 3-credit courses or 30 4-credit ones. Chances are in the 4-5 years most kids spend in college, they'll have at least 1 or 2 classes with instructors who are pedagogically incompetent, not confident, or clueless about teaching. If you've graduated from high school or college, chances are you've run into at least 1 teacher who is an abusive bully (I never had anyone like that but my grad school colleague nearly had her career ruined by one of those who had become a program supervisor. The grad director took that person out of any such role). The best case is that the department is well-staffed, values teaching, observes new instructors, documents concerns, and removes people from the classroom at the end of the term. The number of complaints and observable issues BK racked up in a semester made it nearly certain that he wouldn't go back to the classroom. The other option would have been becoming a research assistant, but that likely would have meant that he made a reasonably decent impression on faculty in his classes. Just my 2 cents on teaching assistants.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I don't want assumptions I want facts. You often tell me and others to prove it and to provide links

You presume to know what everyone is thinking....

1.) The prosecution knows Sy is right so they didn't interrupt his testimony.

2.) If AT thought he was guilty she wouldn't have hired Sy.

3.) He's going to take all the data and find out exactly where BK really was.

He said:

"Based on the data he had received, he believed some statements in the records were not accurate, and he said the missing data could be helpful to the defense."

4.) If Sy Ray finds out BK is guilty, he won't testify on his behalf, that's for certain.

He is a hired expert under oath, he has to answer all questions truthfully, he can't pick and choose.

5.) That judge who disallowed Sy's testimony doesn't even know what an engineer is or the different ways in which software is tested and verified as accurate.

2 Cents

Never tried to link a PDF file before, hope this works!!
Here is a link to a PDF which is a Court Order granting motion to exclude historical cell site location information based on Trax software. It states Trax software is unreliable. It IS used by LE but is considered unreliable by the scientific community. Ray is credited as the "architect of Trax".
"While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community. The methodology and algorithm aren’t published or subject to peer review, and they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community. (Ray revealed the formula during his testimony, but that’s not publishing or subjecting the formula to scientific scrutiny; it’s the opposite, because it has the effect of sandbagging anyone who wishes to challenge it.)"

"With that in mind, the Court held a Shreck hearing to learn more. There, the People called Michael Fegely: a former police officer who now works for ZetX. But he has no scientific background and couldn’t testify about Trax’s ranging formula or algorithm. The hearing, thus, was continued so that the People could summon the right witness.
Ray was that witness. He is ZetX’s founder. He has an associate’s degree but no bachelor’s degree or any other academic credential. He’s not a professional engineer or a radio frequency engineer. At the hearing, Ray claimed, however, that he was an engineer (in his words, he’s “more of an engineer than an engineer”). Despite his lack of qualifications, he estimated that Trax is 94–96 percent accurate." Article is 20 pages long, but you get a sense of what Ray will bring to the table.

 

[Boxer]

Never tried to link a PDF file before, hope this works!!
Here is a link to a PDF which is a Court Order granting motion to exclude historical cell site location information based on Trax software. It states Trax software is unreliable. It IS used by LE but is considered unreliable by the scientific community. Ray is credited as the "architect of Trax".
"While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community. The methodology and algorithm aren’t published or subject to peer review, and they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community. (Ray revealed the formula during his testimony, but that’s not publishing or subjecting the formula to scientific scrutiny; it’s the opposite, because it has the effect of sandbagging anyone who wishes to challenge it.)"

"With that in mind, the Court held a Shreck hearing to learn more. There, the People called Michael Fegely: a former police officer who now works for ZetX. But he has no scientific background and couldn’t testify about Trax’s ranging formula or algorithm. The hearing, thus, was continued so that the People could summon the right witness.
Ray was that witness. He is ZetX’s founder. He has an associate’s degree but no bachelor’s degree or any other academic credential. He’s not a professional engineer or a radio frequency engineer. At the hearing, Ray claimed, however, that he was an engineer (in his words, he’s “more of an engineer than an engineer”). Despite his lack of qualifications, he estimated that Trax is 94–96 percent accurate." Article is 20 pages long, but you get a sense of what Ray will bring to the table.

MOO I want to see their work product.

 

[stemkb]

In the PCA <snip> There has been widespread speculation on who was being stalked and how they were being stalked across many platforms. Most of the speculation in the media IMO originated from the content of the PCA.

I don't see why this is so difficult.

Again, the PCA is unambiguous. A search warrant was obtained in order to ascertain whether or not stalking occurred. The random videos you attach beneath the PCA have no connection to official police business. A hearing was convened to discuss the defense team's telephone survey, during which time BT raised various objections. The question in the survey reads

Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?​

Not stalked the victims (plural) but one of the victims (singular). A reference to the rumor Kaylee was being stalked prior to the attack. This report was investigated by MPD and found to be untrue. If people mistake speculation for fact or conflate these things together that is nobody's fault other than their own.

The defense team argued the survey was based on the public record (i.e. the court record). They displayed video of BT during a press conference telling the public to follow official updates, suggesting the state had disseminated bad information along the way. It wasn't the gotcha moment they expected it to be because (1) BT was correct in his observation and (2) the Judge agreed that two of the questions opposed by BT were not part of the court record and should not have made it into the survey.

(2:25:55)

BT admitting or being forced to concede no stalking occurred is established as a distortion.

 

[jepop]

The defense team argued the survey was based on the public record (i.e. the court record). They displayed video of BT during a press conference telling the public to follow official updates, suggesting the state had disseminated bad information along the way. It wasn't the gotcha moment they expected it to be because (1) BT was correct in his observation and (2) the Judge agreed that two of the questions opposed by BT were not part of the court record and should not have made it into the survey.

Thank you! You've explained the relevance,imo, of the public (ie court) record and the stalking comments made in those hearings,so much more clearly than my attempt a few threads back. I agree with your perspective on what was meant and the context in which the comments were made. I think those comments appeared to be widely misunderstood or conflated and the context may have been overlooked often (questions were being considered within what was in the public record ie PCA).IMOO.

Not stalked the victims (plural) but one of the victims (singular). A reference to the rumor Kaylee was being stalked prior to the attack. This report was investigated by MPD and found to be untrue. If people mistake speculation for fact or conflate these things together that is nobody's fault other than their own.

Now that makes perfect sense. Moo

BT admitting or being forced to concede no stalking occurred is established as a distortion.

In complete agreement. Moo

 

[Cool Cats]

Never tried to link a PDF file before, hope this works!!
Here is a link to a PDF which is a Court Order granting motion to exclude historical cell site location information based on Trax software. It states Trax software is unreliable. It IS used by LE but is considered unreliable by the scientific community. Ray is credited as the "architect of Trax".
"While Ray stands by his formula, it hasn’t gained traction in the scientific community. The methodology and algorithm aren’t published or subject to peer review, and they’ve been routinely labeled as junk science by the relevant scientific community. (Ray revealed the formula during his testimony, but that’s not publishing or subjecting the formula to scientific scrutiny; it’s the opposite, because it has the effect of sandbagging anyone who wishes to challenge it.)"

"With that in mind, the Court held a Shreck hearing to learn more. There, the People called Michael Fegely: a former police officer who now works for ZetX. But he has no scientific background and couldn’t testify about Trax’s ranging formula or algorithm. The hearing, thus, was continued so that the People could summon the right witness.
Ray was that witness. He is ZetX’s founder. He has an associate’s degree but no bachelor’s degree or any other academic credential. He’s not a professional engineer or a radio frequency engineer. At the hearing, Ray claimed, however, that he was an engineer (in his words, he’s “more of an engineer than an engineer”). Despite his lack of qualifications, he estimated that Trax is 94–96 percent accurate." Article is 20 pages long, but you get a sense of what Ray will bring to the table.

Joke.

Prosecution should bring this up. Sy showed nothing, no proof. BK did it so we know there will be no proof of him being somewhere else.

If BK was somewhere else AT would have brought Sy on board last year. If I was innocent I wouldn't sit in my cell and wait a year and a half for proof of my alibi.

Ridiculous.

Opinion only

 

[Boxer]

Gannon Stauch investigation success greatly aided by the next door home owner security cam as is it showed where Gannon was not. He did not leave the house on his own to go to a neighbors.

Similarly footage from all access routes to Pullman can show a whether or not a white Elantra left the city by that route.

So far the white Elantra BK was in was in east Pullman when the phone went out of communication.
The next time it appears is on a home security cam 700 Indian Hills Rd. block in southeast Moscow.

Apparently there is some video from Floyds Cannabis, which is set back from the highway a bit that AT plans to challenge. Fine.
Maybe he went south or north to dig a hole for evidence on the way to Moscow.
There are similar 15 minute-ish gaps between leaving Pullman and arriving in Moscow and leaving
Moscow and driving by the Blaine cell tower area.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

So an Idaho jury deliberated today and recommended the death penalty for Chad Daybell. And the judge sentenced him to the DP. Wonder if it's making BK a little nervous.
Death penalty for Chad Daybell, convicted of 3 murders

 

[Boxer]

So an Idaho jury deliberated today and recommended the death penalty for Chad Daybell. And the judge sentenced him to the DP. Wonder if it's making BK a little nervous.
Death penalty for Chad Daybell, convicted of 3 murders

Hope so, but i don't think he cares if he dies, he seems a vacant person who thrill killed.

 

[Nila Aella]

I don't see why this is so difficult.

Again, the PCA is unambiguous. A search warrant was obtained in order to ascertain whether or not stalking occurred. The random videos you attach beneath the PCA have no connection to official police business. A hearing was convened to discuss the defense team's telephone survey, during which time BT raised various objections. The question in the survey reads

Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?​

Not stalked the victims (plural) but one of the victims (singular). A reference to the rumor Kaylee was being stalked prior to the attack. This report was investigated by MPD and found to be untrue. If people mistake speculation for fact or conflate these things together that is nobody's fault other than their own.

The defense team argued the survey was based on the public record (i.e. the court record). They displayed video of BT during a press conference telling the public to follow official updates, suggesting the state had disseminated bad information along the way. It wasn't the gotcha moment they expected it to be because (1) BT was correct in his observation and (2) the Judge agreed that two of the questions opposed by BT were not part of the court record and should not have made it into the survey.

(2:25:55)

BT admitting or being forced to concede no stalking occurred is established as a distortion.

It isn't difficult

The videos I linked have everything to do with what was in the media which Edelman sourced his questions from.
Edelman did not look at the court record to develope the survey per his testimony.
Everything he used was in the media.
The problem with the Court was that he did source from the media (not the court record) and that 2 questions were untrue. During the court hearing JJJ even commented that the D was using a different definition of Public record (media) than the Court (court record). JMO

4:40 P.M.: Presentation continues. Edelman says he's aware there is a gag order in this case. He discovered it in media coverage of Kohberger case. It did not change how he did his work. Everything he used was in the media, Edelman says. He's now playing a video of a press conference.

5:41 P.M.: Press conference used in presentation was to tell the media to look at the court record, Thompson says. Details were taken from PC and changed, Taylor says. Media sometime get its wrong, Edelman says, and it affects opinions. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-x6aO77qGAxUmGVkFHXxjDM4QFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdnews.com%2Flive-coverage-of-bryan-kohberger-hearing%2Fimage_2a5a261e-f79f-11ee-aa14-eb451a1ac524.html&usg=AOvVaw0Yo4SM2R7BUeXG0t92MGFl&opi=89978449

I heard no mention of the incident at the business in the hearing.
I did hear multiple references to the PCA.
JMO

The PCA mentioned the 12 occasions prior to the crime for a reason. Mentioning late evening and early morning hours was also done for a reason. The reason was either for stalking any of the victims/conducting surveillance/contact with any victims prior to the crime/or the location of BK and his elantra prior to the crime. The media focused on the stalking reason. Quite a few individuals in the media had opinions on which victim was the primary target, differing opinions. JMO

IMO Edelman looked at a large number of media platforms to form his questions, not just one incident at a business with an MPD release (both reported in MSM). There were far more media stories about stalking in relation to the PCA than about the incident at the business. JMO

 

[wendy44]

The whole discussion about stalking being in the PCA started in response to this statement when asked specifically what errors are in the PCA:

I have something much better than that: there is a video recording of the Defense saying in court DURING A HEARING that the PCA is full of errors and the Prosecutor agreeing with her. It's the hearing in which BT admitted that BK never stalked any of the victims and that he never had any internet connection with him.

The implication being that when the prosecutor "admitted" there was no stalking it was one of the errors in the PCA. The prosecutor never admitted to errors in the PCA and BT's whole objection to the survey question about stalking was that it was not in the PCA.

The judge, the prosecution, the defense and the defense's own expert witness all said that the question about stalking was a false fact and that it wasn't in the PCA.

The defense and the expert witness contend that the media extrapolated stories about stalking from what was written in the PCA and their false fact about stalking needed to be included in the survey to determine how many potential jurors were prejudiced by this media coverage. I don't think anyone is arguing the media didn't take what was written in the PCA and blow it up with their own spin on it. They did take the facts of the PCA regarding the 12 times his phone was using cellular services by the King Road house and call it stalking. LE was looking for a connection between the suspect and victims. The PCA reported what was found. Even the defense says the PCA didn't say he was stalking.

 

[NCWatcher]

It isn't difficult

The videos I linked have everything to do with what was in the media which Edelman sourced his questions from.
Edelman did not look at the court record to develope the survey per his testimony.
Everything he used was in the media.
The problem with the Court was that he did source from the media (not the court record) and that 2 questions were untrue. During the court hearing JJJ even commented that the D was using a different definition of Public record (media) than the Court (court record). JMO

4:40 P.M.: Presentation continues. Edelman says he's aware there is a gag order in this case. He discovered it in media coverage of Kohberger case. It did not change how he did his work. Everything he used was in the media, Edelman says. He's now playing a video of a press conference.

5:41 P.M.: Press conference used in presentation was to tell the media to look at the court record, Thompson says. Details were taken from PC and changed, Taylor says. Media sometime get its wrong, Edelman says, and it affects opinions. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-x6aO77qGAxUmGVkFHXxjDM4QFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdnews.com%2Flive-coverage-of-bryan-kohberger-hearing%2Fimage_2a5a261e-f79f-11ee-aa14-eb451a1ac524.html&usg=AOvVaw0Yo4SM2R7BUeXG0t92MGFl&opi=89978449

I heard no mention of the incident at the business in the hearing.
I did hear multiple references to the PCA.
JMO

The PCA mentioned the 12 occasions prior to the crime for a reason. Mentioning late evening and early morning hours was also done for a reason. The reason was either for stalking any of the victims/conducting surveillance/contact with any victims prior to the crime/or the location of BK and his elantra prior to the crime. The media focused on the stalking reason. Quite a few individuals in the media had opinions on which victim was the primary target, differing opinions. JMO

IMO Edelman looked at a large number of media platforms to form his questions, not just one incident at a business with an MPD release (both reported in MSM). There were far more media stories about stalking in relation to the PCA than about the incident at the business. JMO

There was an awful lot of discussion on WS about BK stalking the victims. I seem to remember more posts focused on stalking MM but stalking KG was mentioned too. And both stories were tied to different media accounts per WS rules.
MOO

 

[Megnut]

Joke.

Prosecution should bring this up. Sy showed nothing, no proof. BK did it so we know there will be no proof of him being somewhere else.

If BK was somewhere else AT would have brought Sy on board last year. If I was innocent I wouldn't sit in my cell and wait a year and a half for proof of my alibi.

Ridiculous.

Opinion only

Why does AT need Sy to map out the route the State says BK took (the State does not know his entire path because of gaps of time/CCTV)? Ask BK where he says he was. Oh, that's right, he wasn't somewhere else. If he answers in the affirmative filling in the gaps, he only incriminate himself further. If he lies to her, it pony makes her job harder. SHE'S NOT ASKING HIM.

She needs Sy to finish what LE started with the extra 82% she claims is discoverable (we saw -- DOT screen shots as archived by windy.com, of zero evidentiary value) so that she can say that's a different Elantra and BK was magically on none of those places. She has to claim the Elantra coming from and leaving his apartment and then find a way to park him in Pullman while a mystery murderer in another Elantra pops up after that.

State doesn't have to show BK's entire route. They don't have it.

They do however have the Elantra on CCTV at certain points. Points are nice. Two points make a line. More points form a path. A path gives an impression. Ultimately it might not be a straight line, a full map but it will be compelling.

And AT's alibi defense probably won't even make it to trial, Sy might not make it to trial, she'll be left trying to confuse the jury by arguing there's CCTV that ought to show the Elantra -- "so, where is it?" -- to questioning LE whether they watched CCTV looking for other Elantras.

I'm sure she meets with BK periodically. I imagine she does all the talking. He can't help her, he's not going to help her outsmart the Prosecution, anything he might say will be incriminating. I'm sure she knows that the less he says to her the better.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

For an actual charge of stalking, didn't the victim have to become aware of it? Here, Perthshire there's no evidence that any of the victims had any awareness of BK or, if they did, no one outside any one or more of the four of them know about.

At trial, when the jury sees a nice synthesis of BK's phone and maybe even CCTV video of his Elantra near 1122 King twelve times, then looping on that early morning and his phone in the area later that morning, they can draw their own inferences about whether he was stalking. IMO it'll certainly show a familiarity with the area, the house.... if LE reveals any other overlap, wow. We don't know what all they've uncovered!

They don't need to prove he stalked them even if he did.

They've got him for murder.

JMO

 

[Knitty]

Good Morning.

Dropping a quick reminder that we expect our members to treat all of our other members with respect. Please check your posts before you hit "post reply," and hit the backspace if you need to.

Websleuths members have the use of the emoji feature (to react to member posts) but some of you are occasionally using the HaHa one to ridicule or mock other members rather than using it as a way to share a chuckle. This is NOT respectful.

The Xenforo software doesn't have a means for us to remove individual emojis but we can remove the entire emoji selection from an individual user.

Members who continue to use the emojis improperly risk having the privilege to use that feature removed.

Knitty,
Moderator

 

[Nila Aella]

The whole discussion about stalking being in the PCA started in response to this statement when asked specifically what errors are in the PCA:

I have something much better than that: there is a video recording of the Defense saying in court DURING A HEARING that the PCA is full of errors and the Prosecutor agreeing with her. It's the hearing in which BT admitted that BK never stalked any of the victims and that he never had any internet connection with him.

The implication being that when the prosecutor "admitted" there was no stalking it was one of the errors in the PCA. The prosecutor never admitted to errors in the PCA and BT's whole objection to the survey question about stalking was that it was not in the PCA.

BT

2:19:35 Objection to the survey was that it violated the non dessemination order.

1:30 Representation you acknowledge was false that Mr K allegedly stalked one of the victims, thats false.
Not every fact specific question came from the probable cause affidavit. Among 9 fact specific questions, not all 9 came from the PCA.

2:20:35 Facts that include those that are not true.

The judge, the prosecution, the defense and the defense's own expert witness all said that the question about stalking was a false fact and that it wasn't in the PCA.

The Judge:

143:49 Questions that were not true, those were not in the PCA
2:26:30 Two questions were not in the public record came out of the media somewhere, who knows where it came from. I don't think there is anything, not that I am aware of, in the public record that said anything about that. About your client.


The Defense:

1:24:42 Sources of most prejudicial: Media Items and PCA in the visual on powerpoint.
2:04:22 Stalking represented in affidavit
2:04:55 A lot of information in affidavit flat out false
2:10:45 State actors that put information out there
2:25:48 Facts/false facts info is based on the public record the way the State and State actors put information into the public record that has been dessiminated

The defense and the expert witness contend that the media extrapolated stories about stalking from what was written in the PCA and their false fact about stalking needed to be included in the survey to determine how many potential jurors were prejudiced by this media coverage. I don't think anyone is arguing the media didn't take what was written in the PCA and blow it up with their own spin on it. They did take the facts of the PCA regarding the 12 times his phone was using cellular services by the King Road house and call it stalking. LE was looking for a connection between the suspect and victims. The PCA reported what was found.

Edelman
39.18 Media took document and then published the highlights and key findings in that document and added editorial commentary, debate, discussion, spin.

Law and Crime

JMO

 

[Megnut]

BT

2:19:35 Objection to the survey was that it violated the non dessemination order.

1:30 Representation you acknowledge was false that Mr K allegedly stalked one of the victims, thats false.
Not every fact specific question came from the probable cause affidavit. Among 9 fact specific questions, not all 9 came from the PCA.

2:20:35 Facts that include those that are not true.


The Judge:

143:49 Questions that were not true, those were not in the PCA
2:26:30 Two questions were not in the public record came out of the media somewhere, who knows where it came from. I don't think there is anything, not that I am aware of, in the public record that said anything about that. About your client.


The Defense:

1:24:42 Sources of most prejudicial: Media Items and PCA in the visual on powerpoint.
2:04:22 Stalking represented in affidavit
2:04:55 A lot of information in affidavit flat out false
2:10:45 State actors that put information out there
2:25:48 Facts/false facts info is based on the public record the way the State and State actors put information into the public record that has been dessiminated

Edelman
39.18 Media took document and then published the highlights and key findings in that document and added editorial commentary, debate, discussion, spin.

Law and Crime

JMO

I have listened again.

I am more convinced than ever that, in lieu of a STANDARD poll, the Defense employed a brand of voir dire. They are a huge step ahead of themselves. Voir vire without the important part, whether they could remain impartial....

She doesn't know that the exact same halted survey in other counties! She's already arguing he has to change the venue! The whole country might think he's guilty based on national coverage!

All moot however because the judge allowed them to carry on.

BK may be in her 30s, however, before this case makes it to trial.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

A point worth clarifying, nothing in the PCA represented that BK was stalking anyone. No inference was drawn, just the inclusion of twelve additional trips near the home and another the morning of.

The Defense made the HUGE leap, using that to justify the stalking question!

The public has run away with speculation of SOCIAL MEDIA stalking, completely independent of the twelve trips! Independent of the PCA. That came from deep dives into the victims' social media and BK's and speculation from his Vegan habits and the restaurant where two victims worked (because it has vegan menu items).

The State never represented anywhere that anyone was stalking IMO.

What a bunch of noise.

JMO

 

[Gemmie]

The Xenforo software doesn't have a means for us to remove individual emojis but we can remove the entire emoji selection from an individual user.

Knitty,
Moderator

Underlined for focus.

I like the way the software was designed as this way only the emoji abusers can have their Haha taken away. No reason for the rest of us to be punished for a a small handful of people's actions.